Cfgttcgwy

Front 1

what medically happenecd- he quiver

Back 1

he quivers, shakes, vomits, and faints.those acts caused me severe emotional distress

Front 2

hamline1-youndont

Back 2

you dont need torepresent me research me on the most recent law cases jIEui jot CRsyt asssist hamile proffersor is st thomas professor to do an aMUICUS

Front 3

csss the assault fall flat====See Etherton v. Doe, 268 Va. 209 (2004).

Back 3

====See Etherton v. Doe, 268 Va. 209 (2004). This means that words alone “do not make the [defendant] liable for assault unless together with other acts or circumstances they put the [plaintiff] in reasonable apprehension of an imminent [battery].” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 31. However, comment d to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 31 seems to indicate that there can be circumstances where words alone might amount to an assault, even without an overt physical act, but this might be contrary to the weight of authority.

Front 4

wiscowwill drollshut

Back 4

drollinger sht just cuz he could pull it the wrong acts ,jeff didnt have the right to go along with.bivens hits drollingershit the loswer court2nd circuitr call 6 agents was right. then scotus so TYhe policy is unconstiotutionasl

Front 5

hss no fromal or express- no boil

Back 5

hss no boiloerrplate operation where he can do that but i have right to redress as an american citizeb,under the coplor or of his law and i want toi be poaid for it.

Front 6

hss--nichols versus unite d states 1994 scotus,rompilla v beard 2005 unreasonable strickland.-judge want more

Back 6

hss judge wants more time in sent---

Front 7

hss--The procedural protections of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment will only be triggered if state action implicates a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty or property--board

Back 7

hss bard of regents versus roth--???the 14th amendment in plaint terms????violate any of the 1-27 in the name of a state

Front 8

quiz9--did jeff have reason to fear from a direct answer to haase?part 2 dis jeff have reason to fear from an answer to that question in a hearing.

Back 8

quiz9did jeff have

Front 9

hss .even if im guilty(of the reoffense) i should be protected he took that away from me.-ohio v

Back 9

hssohio versus reiner 2001 scotus is to protect one who might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances====.==not haveing opportunity or option to talk to the judge or legal proffesional during and after being indicted is highly ambiguous.what r you gonna use to Government to disprove a witness’ claim to Fifth Amendment protection.

Front 10

hss further differnetiation-refered

Back 10

hssrefered -boss sat on haunches =canton v harrius 1989
referered- boss yapped -pembaur
super powere no referal emplyee -pape

Front 11

hss romilla v bear5d a denovo

Back 11

hss A de novo examination of this element shows that counsel’s lapse was prejudicial. Had they looked at the prior conviction file, they would have found a range of mitigation leads that no other source had opened up

Front 12

hss probation posed to be easier thgan paarole-samp

Back 12

sampson verus california 2006==

Front 13

hss drollinger gives bad behavior from dciea a pass by saying habeus 2254 is the only relief wehn they badly behave ,and thata 2254 complint cant commence isnt good until the judge touches the dciea-there is

Back 13

hss there is a significant gap between when dciea misbehaves and the and their bad behavior hits the judges hands.So now im doing a onearmed fight with an arm that is traditionally used fortime complaints not condition complaints.

Front 14

jayjay
. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001 --excessive

Back 14

jayjay )(excessive force during an arrest);

Front 15

hss excessive sentencing-2254 case nichols v united states 1994=====held consistent

Back 15

hss Held: Consistent with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, a sentencing court may consider a defendant's previous uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in sentencing him for a subsequent offense so long as the previous uncounseled misdemeanor conviction did not result in a sentence of imprisonment. Pp. 743-749.

Front 16

hss badman2--if he judge

Back 16

hss If the judge were to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs would be denied an enforceable injunction. If Big Chemical were to decide to begin dumping again, the plaintiffs would be forced to file suit and restart the process all over again. For this reason, Big Chemical’s case will not be dismissed for mootness. thomkins no states patsy

Front 17

jayjay feds centrsal federally protected right. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983).-under color

Back 17

under the color of law define---when an official acts beyond the bounds of lawful authority by abusing or misusing (his) (her) authority, and such acts subject another to a deprivation of a federal right, a section 1983 violation occurs because the official is acting under color of law.

Front 18

jayjay A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.. Second, the law falls literally within the categorical descriptions of ex post facto laws that Justice Chase set forth more than 200 years ago in Calder v. Bull, which this Court has recognized as an authoritative account of the Clause's scope, Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37,46. It falls within the second category, which Justice Chase understood to include a new law that inflicts punishments where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment. Third, numerous legislators, courts, and commentators have long believed it well settled that the Clause forbids resurrection of a time-barred prosecution. The Reconstruction Congress of 1867 rejected a bill that would have revived time-barred treason prosecutions against Jefferson Davi

Back 18

jay jay STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

No. 01-1757. Argued March 31, 2003-Decided June 26, 2003

Front 19

hss expert 2 he took a week to withold an formal appointmentattorney ,formal indictment notice-which would have renmoved room for forcing the waiver ,formal right and need to an attorney-------ce to Jeff or complain

Back 19

hss expert 2 jeff justifiably relied on haase’s omission to his detriment, so jeff may be able to argue that he acquired the 5th and the 14th and wisdoc -haase is estopped from now claiming their interest. A reasonable person in haase circumstances, with actual knowledge of 5th and 14th, would have demanded that cease this conversation waitinf and retain an attorney. Haase failure to do so and subsequent sale to th judge with a coerced representation indicating that it was willing make haase liable for the loss Jeff will incur

Front 20

hss unjuyst enrichment -

Back 20

hss callano==unjust enrichment -trying to get paid for unwanted extra haircut nope. callono got to get old owner pendergrassUnjust enrichment of the shrubbary. P couldn't recover against D bc she had a legit claim against the other party.---

Front 21

arraign--after play tape high profile due to censorship

Back 21

arraiun-- ultimateley for a case treated like its high profile, the defendants right to an impartial trier of fact the 6th amendment truimps here trumps.Undue prjudice is unconsttituttiona

Front 22

arrr-the very nature of the public record and their write up of it steals my pariole eveidence rule.nadmissible because it is not relevant to make any factor more or less likely in the case.parole evidence

Back 22

arr--parole evidence rtule

Front 23

arrain prejudiced judge w ee

Back 23

arr--
w ee giving notice of intention to defend pursuant to Rule 3-307(b) (1). went ignored.,

Front 24

hss money phase--no renmittur money phoase

Back 24

hss money phoase all he had to do Thedoctrine of unjust enrichment will allow Jeff to recoup his expenses based on a good faith mistake under "asking for heaRING"because of Hasse’s knowing failure to assert his right to fromally ionform of indictment,fromsl arraigmernty,and froma l right to attoeney and fromal need of an attroney , at a reasonable time--befoere he sent to judge

Front 25

hss everting befoer the paper ffgo t to the judge-imth prsose

Back 25

im a prosecuter against hasses and a defender for me im not in the proccess of saving wisdoc's ass.-- non of the self dealing and fraud on haase i dont wanna go thart far

Front 26

hss money phose-haase platin expert smith versus wade paper made the

Back 26

hss money phose---paper made the acts intentionl Even though the crime of false pretenses requires a misrepresentation of fact, an “expert opinion” may be deemed sufficiently close enough to a fact in order to support liability

Front 27

hss knowledge mad haase liable==even though the

Back 27

hss -- Even though the crime of false pretenses requires a misrepresentation of fact, an “expert opinion” may be deemed sufficiently close enough to a fact in order to support liability.-lkiable under allen guerrero

Front 28

quiz 10knowledge requires

Back 28

menes rea --- Knowledge requires a very high level of certainty but not absolute certainty

Front 29

quiz 11 menes rea 2 reclessness

Back 29

recklessness becUSE IT DIESREGArd of a known risksh riaskm- were u aware of the 5th and 14th amendment attcotus law risk were you apprsied of thet --yes recklessness

Front 30

hss strenght of drollwiscowill---The constitution and scotus supersedes an inconsisitent state or district law-strenth of--preemption plain

Back 30

hss strenght of drollwiscowill-scotus preeemption===== implied preemption may occur when federal regulation of a subject is so pervasive that there is simply no room for state law.

Front 31

hss strenght of drollwiscowill-scotus preeemption2

Back 31

hss strenght of drollwiscowill-scotus preeemption2 fierld preemprtrion5th,14th amendments ===the fedral government wants it all justliken it wants immigration

Front 32

hss strenght of drollwiscowill-scotus preeemption3not completely dispositive of the issue.--

Back 32

hss strenght of drollwiscowill-scotus preeemption3

michogabnm long 1983 onr cant wisconsin. States cannot go below the ‘federal bar,’ or minimum, when it comes to the fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights, but they may provide greater protections as a matter of state law.

Front 33

hss you sir r bad man 2

Back 33

hss you sir are3 bad man 2 under roe v wade 1973 and ======\
\souther pacific terminal--- versus 1cc 1911If the judge were to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs would be denied an enforceable injunction. If Big Chemical were to decide to begin dumping again, the plaintiffs would be forced to file suit and restart the process all over again. For this reason, Big Chemical’s case will not be dismissed for mootness.

Front 34

arrain statement q1 arrAin tatement

Back 34

arrain statement haases is responsible for any or all parts of this claim.i notofied wisdoc ofcomplaints of haases activities but they took no action.intent to defend and a demand for a jury trial.i have good fdaithed my" parole evidence" probation.

Front 35

css -inform the overall reasonableness of the plaintiff’s perception of an imminent battery. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 31- thought was

Back 35

cssss thought was king kong i thought she was gone whup my ass, i thought she kbew kung fu==“reasonable apprehension” of the imminent battery.

Front 36

homeless empty houe rights -trespassing is legal if being chased by bears and guns and cold weather See Ploof v. Putnam, 81 Vt. 471 (1908).

Back 36

homeless empty houe rights-With respect to trespass to land, the doctrine of “private necessity” gives a defendant the overriding legal privilege to occupy someone else’s real property where defendant reasonably believes that his physical invasion of plaintiff’s real property is necessary to prevent serious harm to defendant, his property, or to a third person or that person’s property—even if that means breaking and entering. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 197, 213. Even so, defendant’s actions must be limited to what is reasonably necessary to avert the serious harm; any unnecessary or excessive use or destruction of plaintiff’s property will constitute a tort. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 197, 263 (with comments

Front 37

hssss

Back 37

hssss

Front 38

hssss

Back 38

hssss

Front 39

hssss

Back 39

hssss

Front 40

hssss

Back 40

hssss

Front 41

hssss

Back 41

hssss

Front 42

hssss

Back 42

hssss

Front 43

hssss

Back 43

hssss

Front 44

hssss csss quizz 22w did you abuse a relationship of trust power or conficdence

Back 44

hssss csss quiz 22 The conduct at issue is an abuse of a position of power over plaintiff by the defendant, or an abuse of a relationship of special trust and confidence.

Front 45

hssss judge quiz 1

Back 45

hssss jugde quiz 1 imminent danger law safety or search, ok sounds like my acts werent illegal- the forced waivernot narroly consturucted to protect bill of rights----can i get a pembaur versus cincinatti

Front 46

hssss-quiz 16 whT WAS trhe pressing emergency

Back 46

hssss quiz 16 force to save others, fight, escape or contraband,procedure new -location.Administrative rule .--sherbert --verner

Front 47

csss- was nothin

Back 47

css was nothing -ther was overt physical manid=festation

Front 48

csss just a soft paper hit to his ego==A defendant takes his plaintiff as he finds her. See White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000). This means that a defendant does not need to intend or anticipate the full measure of the harm he causes by virtue of the intentional torts he commits in order for the “intent” prong to be met. Thus, once the basic elements of the torts are met, he is responsible for whatever damage actually and proximately results from his conduct, whether he anticipated it or not

Back 48

csss ciss hospital==papier mache plaintiff rule.” A defendant takes his plaintiff as he finds her. See White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000).

Front 49

hssss quiz 15==Bruno’s consent was not “informed”, but was induced by a mistake owing to Jill’s deliberate omission of information, and therefore ineffective—see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892B (2)

Back 49

hssss quiz 15 was jeff smart enuf and enable enough to request a lawyer at that time and or fromal heariong at that time (was it a knowing waiver),have been egregious enough to warrant an inference of severe emotional distress even without a physical manifestation. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46

Front 50

hssss after hupalm==&&

Back 50

hssss ahaase====&&&& he should sue for false imprisonment, and then tack on his emotional distress as “parasitic damages.”

Front 51

hssss end of 12 arisin ut of

Back 51

hssss arising out of his act of coercion with facke waiver,jeffreybn is under a duty to mitigate his loss by going into conterclaim

Front 52

csss hsss more likely for IIED?in alawsutit..public huiliationb

Back 52

csss hsss public humiliation in conjunction with that bad behavior ==ciss haase====extreme and outrageous conduct”

Front 53

csss qquiz 4honmless

Back 53

is honmless people and gthe public guest considerexd public?

Front 54

csss were there the severity of Jill’s emotional distress here has 2 overt manifestations: fist she had

Back 54

cssss : First, she had a panic attack and had to be calmed down. Secondly, she practically immediately quit her job and cleared out her desk—a decision that most people would not make at the drop of a hat, which supports the notion that it was driven by severe emotional distress. Third, the sheer outrageousness of Bruno’s conduct might itself furnish evidence that Jill was more likely to have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of it. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment ====her boss, regularly and publicly humiliated her over her ears for a in a public manner.

Front 55

csss quiz1 social use trem oe ebndearment--is being called

Back 55

csss quiz 1 is being called sshole in front of others very much “warranted by the social usages prevalent at the time and place” of the contact, and hence cannot be “offensive.”

Front 56

csss define sever emotional distress See GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999) ---the elements

Back 56

csss The elements of IIED are that the defendant must engage in extreme and outrageous conduct, which was done intentionally or recklessly with respect to whether it would cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, and the conduct must actually and proximately cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. See GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999).== been to the hospital

Front 57

csss

Back 57

csss

Front 58

csss

Back 58

csss

Front 59

csss

Back 59

csss

Front 60

hsss-- can i get requisire intyent qiz 13

Back 60

hsss quiz 13 did you say you quit did you say u have the escape hatch

Front 61

hsss quiz 12 --hudson palmer===. If he does know of reasonable way out or you point to it other than jail or signing

Back 61

hsss--If he does know of reasonable way out , then he is not confined, because he knows of a reasonable way out. If not, then he is confined despite the existence of the trap door. In light of the rules discussed here, the other answer choices are incorrect